are in pretty bad shape they've been vacant for for over a decade um we've been uh we got an
interior demolition permit to try to uh clean it out and secure it as much as possible um we we
have financing pending on the property we're not doing any we're not changing the footprint of the
property so it's pretty much a use uh case variance on a property that zoned single family
that's on a block with hundreds of other multifamily properties.
So we're not opposed to a continuance to get the vote from the RCO,
but we did have the meeting, and waiting until September
would jeopardize the interest rate, which would make things much more expensive,
as well as lumber costs.
And this being a historic property, the cost and the manufacturing of windows,
which is expensive and time-consuming, would put us into a winner
if we had to wait until September to order them.
I keep hearing September.
Is that a date where we'd be looking at September
or is there anything sooner?
September or October for continuances.
All right.
Here, excuse me, this is Sharon.
Is this one that might be,
would the RCO be willing to have it held
only for the letter that they provide
to be read into the record? I don't know, but I was going to suggest, given the financial
circumstances that the developer will be facing, if the board were to approve it, I would suggest
we go forward with the case today and wait for a response from the RCO. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, so we'll go forward. Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
I see no more hands, Chair.
I see no more hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Carol, I think we then go to number two on the add-ons, right?
I was here for this one.
So MI 2020-000121, 4290 Penn Street.
We were waiting for a letter from the RCO.
I understand there's a letter of opposition.
The record was closed.
this is really just a vote for us, correct Sharon? And to read the record into the letter
into the record. I did email it to you. Great, thank you. All right, I will read the letter
into the record from the Frankford Neighbor Advisory Committee. The Frankford NAC Zoning
committee had a zoom meeting on thursday may the 6th 2021 the applicant was seeking a variance for
a daycare that would be operating on the first floor of a school building not affiliated with
the school ours our zoning board meaning the frankfurt advisory committee zoning board had
some concerns for the safety of the children having access to the third floor i thought we addressed
that last week but I'll ask that question shortly. We are denying the request because the zoning
doesn't allow for it. Both educational facility and daycare must be in separate facility and not
on the same lot. That's a little bit different than not in the same having anything on the third
floor. Correct me if I'm wrong someone I thought there was an agreement last week that the third
floor would be sealed off?
Is memory certain, is that correct?
There were questions about it.
I don't think the applicant ever agreed to that.
We could make that a provisional, correct, if we were at work to vote?
The third floor not used for the daycare purposes.
okay all right
any questions from the board no no no thank you mi 2020-000121 4290 north penn street my vote is
yes with proviso but no daycare activity on third floor. My good is yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Thank you MI 2020. Excuse me chair I'm sorry to interrupt
again. Could you reverse the order of the next two cases if you wouldn't mind I have to pull
the letter. Do you want to do number four first? Yes, please. MI 2021-000789-1620
Chancellor Street. I believe we were waiting for a letter, but we did get a letter. It was
non-opposition. I'm sorry. Yes, on this one, it's just revised plans, one page, and no live or
amplified music outdoors got it okay so my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page
approved today and no live or amplified music on deck my vote is yes proviso yes with proviso yes
with proviso are we ready for number three uh sharon if you could i just emailed you the letter
that we were waiting for on that one if you've received it see if i got it
didn't come through yet oh there it is i got it now and i believe it's only the last paragraph
that you really need to read is that the one that begins with after further discussion
Actually, you know what?
I'm sorry.
You should probably start with the team from 2406 North.
I think that is supposed to be the letter with the rationale.
You see a letter with explanation of rationale for position.
And then it goes into the actual letter.
So I'll read the letter of explanation, correct?
The team from 2406.
is it yes all right the team from let me start over again uh mi 2020-003245
2406 north 2nd street letter with explanation of rationale for the position
2nd street letter with explanation of rationale for the position attached
the team from 2406 north 2nd street presented to the community in march the project is being
described as a multi-family dwelling development excuse multi-family development with six
residential units three one-bedroom and three two-bedroom units the project encompasses the
entire block from second to fill up concerns raised by the community were pricing of the units
construction timeline contractor and subcontractors of the past of the project i guess they want to
know who they are, parking and trash slash debris. After further discussions with the team from
2406 North 2nd Street, the community has decided to support the project. The development team
stated they would agree to the rentals in the $700 to $900 range for a one-bedroom
and a $900 to $1,000 range for two-bedroom units.
The development team is also discussing during the meeting
that they would be willing to inform the community of subcontractors they use
and hire local subcontractors as required by the community.
None of that is enforceable, correct?
that's correct and the final position was one of support yeah thank you mi 2020-003-245-2406
north 2nd street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
okay number five on our list uh number five six and seven uh these are only to be voted correct
yes yes correct they're pre-pandemic cases um on number five we did receive a letter from
councilwoman gauthier um supporting the proposal but asking that a proviso be added requiring it
to be owner occupied um i've discussed this with i contacted ellen i and they agreed that it's not
enforceable not enforceable correct thank you all right uh so the calendar number three seven
nine five eight two one five south melville my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you calendar number 37303 1952 Elkhart Street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes and calendar number three seven five
six four 908 East Schiller Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you uh
frank you're muted
a regular we go to our regular list number one on our list um yes i'm not sure if you ever read
in the um the general instructions at the start of this session miss denary were they read in um
yeah where they i'm sorry i apologize yeah okay thank you thank you uh did we get a letter from
the rco yet sharon i don't have a copy of it it it may have gone to the rco zba mailbox but um
Maybe Mr. Molloy will have a copy that he can present.
Okay, so MI 2021-000961, 101 East Springer Street.
Mr. Molloy.
Mr. Molloy has been promoted to panelists.
Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Malloy, please identify yourself with the records.
Spell your last hand and we'll swear you in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can you hear me?
My name is Michael Malloy with Obermeyer, Redmond, Maxwell, Hipple.
I'm at 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400, Philadelphia.
Here on behalf of the applicant 101, I'm sorry, here on behalf of the applicant Springer 101 LP.
And your last name is spelled M-A-L-L-O-Y, correct?
And your last name is spelled M-A-L-L-O-Y, correct?
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir. Yes, M-A-L-L-Y for the record.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Thank you.
Please proceed.
So today we have a relatively straightforward application.
And if it's okay with you, I'm going to share my screen.
I'm trying to find the...
And while you're doing it, do you have a letter from the RCO?
We do. It came earlier this week and we supplemented the exhibit packet with that letter from the RCO.
It's marked in the revised exhibit packet as exhibit I to the presentation.
Mr. Malloy, if we could pause one second. Fatina, could you promote him to a panelist, please?
And then you'll be able to share your screen, sir.
thank you okay sorry about that I just promoted him oh no problem thank you very much let me turn
my camera on to there we go let me adjust this here so thank you very much and if it's okay
I'll share my screen and so can everybody see that we have a number of exhibits and if it's
okay i'll just run through because we're not we're not sure if we will have opposition to this
tonight so i'm just gonna uh to end this afternoon so i'm just gonna run through um exhibit a was
the refusal i'm sorry i hate to interrupt but maybe i missed it did we did you get sworn in
and the questions asked no i believe i swore them in yes and the questions were asked
uh no my mistake sorry about that carol
what i'm doing here um do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes we do have you emailed the exhibit packet proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
or referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you
met with the rco and do you have a letter we do we have and we do thank you okay thank you you
may proceed excuse me this is sharon i just wanted to um correct myself we did receive
the supplemental um package um ms mariano did send us the the letter from the rco
thank you and for the board we got that to you as soon as we got it there was no no delay there
the RCO was a little late sending it. So if it's okay with you, I'm just going to run through the
exhibits in the packet to make sure they're marked and, you know, later admitted into the record.
Exhibit A is the refusal. Exhibit B is our posting site, I'm sorry, photographs of the site,
the posting, the surrounding area. Exhibit C will be a rendering of the proposed project.
Exhibit D is a zoning plan and elevations. Exhibit E is interior floor plans. Exhibit F is a zoning
map showing the property. Exhibit G is a letter from the East Mount Airy Neighbors Association.
Exhibit H is the tax clearance. Exhibit I is an RCO letter and certificate of mailing,
and I'm realizing that might be there twice I'll have to check. And Exhibit J is the appeal of
project information form. Exhibit K is a copy of the deed. So what we have before you is a property
located at 101 East Springer Street in the Mount Airy section of Philadelphia. And the property
is approximately 2,737 square feet. It's located in the RSA 5 residential single family attached
district. And it's situated at the corner of Ross Street, I'm sorry, and East Springer Street.
And as I scroll down, let me skip to what we see in the first photograph, we get a good look at the existing building and it's shown in the center.
It's a single story, relatively decrepit, older concrete block warehouse building with a roof falling in.
It's in terrible shape. It occupies the entire 2,737 square feet of the lot, so the lot is entirely impervious coverage.
That view is looking east down Springer Street, and then we see another view still east down Springer Street at the corner of Ross and Springer.
The third photo shows across the street. There's a junkyard of some kind across the street from Springer.
of some kind across the street from Springer. This is another east photo so you can see
some of the housing types. There are housing types of all different sizes and dimensions
in this neighborhood. And then we see some of the other photographs. This is looking west
down Springer Street toward, I'm sorry, west down Ross Street towards Philhalena Street,
and then we see St. Michael's Cemetery across Ross Street. This is a property in this last
photo are the townhouses basically to the northwest of the property. The property is
located east of these newer townhouses. So next we show the proposed development and what's proposed
are instead of the concrete block warehouse is our three new townhouses. The rendering shows
They were prepared for 101 East Springer Street, and they were prepared by KCA Design Associates.
And with me today, and we'll get him on, is Logan Dry from KCA.
And Logan will walk us through the design in a little more detail, but just so we can understand exactly what we're talking about here.
So the developers of these three units have worked closely with the neighborhood before.
And so before even attending the RCO meeting, they felt the need and they incorporated a lot of the elements that they learned from working in the neighborhood into the design.
And so what we see is what they feel is very, and what Logan will testify to, is very contextual, using real brick material, incorporating things like front vestibules to create an interface with the street and with the activity at the frontage.
These lots will front on Ross Street.
And as we see, some of the other features include some of the larger size windows.
They will include rear parking.
And it's important, each one will have a rear parking garage.
There are no new curb cuts proposed.
You see to the left, you see a small white vehicle leaving a driveway.
And Logan will go into more detail there.
but they each of these units will access from the rear and without the need for any additional curb
cuts. So the refusal, the zoning of refusal, the use is by right. The townhouses, attached
townhouses are acceptable in the RSA 5 and what we're here for are three variances on all three
lots. First was for the minimum lot size in RSA 5 is 1440, 1440 square feet. The lots are 912,
912 and 911 respectively. Two of the lots fail to meet the minimum open area requirement and we feel
this is the minimus at a 25 percent and two of the lots B and C fail to meet it there at 22.5
and 22.4 respectively. The lot size is appropriate with the neighborhood and when Logan gets up,
you'll hear that it would not be possible for the applicant to build a viable project by right
on this. The buy-ride project would result in lots that do not conform or cannot conform and
further create unusually sized lots where they're highly inappropriate for the neighborhood. So